get_airport_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds valuable context: 'Read-only, no authentication, no external booking links, and no booking side effects,' reinforcing and extending beyond annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states functionality, second gives usage guidelines and behavioral traits. No waste, front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, yet description only says 'metadata' without detailing what fields are returned. While the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, the description could be more complete by specifying the structure of the response (e.g., airport name, city, country).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter fully described in schema ('Three-letter IATA airport code (e.g. 'SFO'). Case-insensitive.'). Description adds no further semantic details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Look up metadata for one airport by IATA code' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning alternatives like search_travel_options and compare_routes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides explicit when-to-use ('to validate or explain a single airport code before route planning') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('use search_travel_options for an actual trip search and compare_routes for multiple origin-destination pairs').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.